Proposed 2009 MARRS

[Charlie Broring]

Jeff, you keep talking about "split grids" like it's some kind of a solution to an awkward mix of classes. Your dreaming. Stewards will fight it and screw it up if allowed at all. History repeats itself.

[jjjanos]

However, My reason for starting this thread was that I feel that great racing is our best avenue to attract drivers to the MARRS series. I feel that the 8 group schedule is going to compromise the quality of racing for quite a few classes and cost us drivers. I don't think an extra couple laps on Sunday is going to attract a single new driver. I think Saturday afternoon racing can take place with a more comfortable 9 group format. This is certainly not the self serving motive that you imply

I think we made a mistake with our plans for next year and if others feel the same we have time to reconsider.

Then put together an alternate. Simply saying 8=bad, 9=good is no good. Tell me what the 9 will be. I've run the numbers for groups and out together schedules and, IMO, 9 is a useless contraction. We might as well stay with 10 or let SRF combine with Prod and give them double the track time.

That doesn't solve the ITR/ITS/ITA cluster though. Where are we going to put them?

Attached are the 2008 car counts with the 2008 groupings. Put together a 9-group format that makes sense. I've got a spreadsheet that will automatically do the totals for proposed groupings. Send me a PM with an email and I'll fire it off to any and all who want it. Now put together a 9-group weekend schedule with the following rules:
1. Add 2 minutes to every session for the cool off lap.
2. Leave 10 minutes between sessions for slack.
3. Leave 65 minutes for lunch.
4. Races = 1.5 minutes/lap plus 4 minutes.

Cutting one group gets us a hair over 5 minutes of racing for the 9 remaining groups on Saturday. On Sunday, we can pick up about 5 minutes of track time for the remaining groups.

Cut two run groups, we pick up 12.5 minutes on Saturday, or about an entire qualifying session. On Sunday, we pick up about 10 minutes/group, or about 1/3 of what we each get now.

Jeff, you keep talking about "split grids" like it's some kind of a solution to an awkward mix of classes. Your dreaming. Stewards will fight it and screw it up if allowed at all. History repeats itself.

If it's in the Supps they have to do it. We don't give them option of granting the split grid.

[erlrich]

Attached are the 2008 car counts with the 2008 groupings. Put together a 9-group format that makes sense. I've got a spreadsheet that will automatically do the totals for proposed groupings. Send me a PM with an email and I'll fire it off to any and all who want it. Now put together a 9-group weekend schedule with the following rules:

Geez, must be an accountant thing...I also put together a spreadsheet that does the same thing...except my car counts are different in quite a few of the classes; you must have counted all entrants? I only counted actual starters.

Anyway, here is a link to that spreadsheet, if anyone would like to play with the numbers. Please save it to your computer before messing with it, as I didn't go to the trouble of locking any of the cells.

[Charlie Broring]

I'm pretty sure ITA racing would have been some of the best racing they had had in years too if they only averaged 19 cars on track instead of the 33 they averaged.

I fully understand the frustration and some of the best ITC racing I had was when we were with ITB, but that is because our numbers were low, accross the board. I think now it's more of a we need to spread the pain out equally. When you do that, you piss people off and make some happier (not happy, happier).

I don't think you get my point. Currently MARRS ITB is enjoying the same thing discussed elsewhere in this Board. There were a lot of different ITB cars that could win any given race. Often half the field were "front runners" If there were 33 or 43 or what eve, and there was the same high ratio of potential winners running together for the win, the racing would only be better still. Currently SM and SSM races are near the ideal in my mind with many cars of similar capability in only one class. This is one of the big attractions of Miata's. The ability of class to race together without being impeded by slow cars in other classes makes for good racing.

Conversely, when there are many classes a race group the the off pace cars in faster classes can really impact on the quality of racing for the slower classes. The 2007 VIR ITA/ITB/ITC/SRX7 and whoever else was the worst example of this. And that was the reason we didn't race at VIR this year. That was really bad racing in the opinion of many a MARRS driver.

My issue is not so much with the number of cars in the groups but rather the number of classes and the way the classes will interact. I sure wouldn't want to run my ITS car along side GT1 as we voted to do next year.

[Charlie Broring]

Jeff, You are playing with numbers and not considering what makes good racing. Great racing is what attracts me and many other to the MARRS series.

If more time is needed to run a 9 group schedule with Saturday PM races we can take 1 or 2 minuets (one lap) from each Saturday morning qualifying session. With uncrowded groups and less fighting for open track we don't need much time to qualify. I don't think I personally ran a qualifying session from flag to flag last year as the fastest laps came early before the car gets hot. One or even more less laps in qualifying is a small price to pay for Saturday racing, if it's good racing. If big groups like SSM complain we could give groups with more then 40 cars the 1 or2 minuets back.

We voted for 8 race groups without a plan that defined how much time we needed.

I had hoped we would build from last years generally well accepted format and make adjustments to address it's shortcomings. That, and a clear view of our needs would have been a sensible approach. But at the meeting we gave little consideration to last years grouping problems and just jammed most of the closed wheel classes into 4 groups. And apparently some are not happy with the results.

If there are enough concerns about the negative impact of our proposed schedule, we should reconsider it. I don't think we did a good job in planning and I was wondering how many others felt the same.

[jjjanos]

Geez, must be an accountant thing...I also put together a spreadsheet that does the same thing...except my car counts are different in quite a few of the classes; you must have counted all entrants? I only counted actual starters.

Two sources for the difference -
First - I used the "official" class count. Can't vouch whether actual starters or the one I used is more accurate.
Second - we moved some cars for known car adjustments, i.e. MR2 to ITB, some ITC cars converting to ITB.

Conversely, when there are many classes a race group the the off pace cars in faster classes can really impact on the quality of racing for the slower classes. The 2007 VIR ITA/ITB/ITC/SRX7 and whoever else was the worst example of this. And that was the reason we didn't race at VIR this year. That was really bad racing in the opinion of many a MARRS driver.

Only 4 classes have enjoyed the luxury of not having another class fubar the class race - SSM, SM, SRF and ITB. In the past, every other class has had to deal with other classes not being considerate. The proposed schedule has everyone other than SSM and SM suffering equally. I'd be more than happy to suggest a proposal to combine someone with SM since there's room, but frankly, I can't think of another class that I dislike that much and there's no room in SSM.

As for VIR - I find it somewhat hypocritical that you were in favor of returning for the same exact format as 2007 and yet criticize something at Summit that is no where near an alphabet soup mix of classes. Seven classes with 80+ cars at the end of a 3-5 hour tour is acceptable, but the proposed 2009 groupings will produce terrible racing?

My issue is not so much with the number of cars in the groups but rather the number of classes and the way the classes will interact. I sure wouldn't want to run my ITS car along side GT1 as we voted to do next year.

And where do you suggest we put ITS? It's pretty clear to me that ITS/ITA is screwing up both races and, worse yet, ITA cars make up 2 of the top-5 ITS finishing positions.

Jeff, You are playing with numbers and not considering what makes good racing. Great racing is what attracts me and many other to the MARRS series.

I've considered the impact on the racing and I don't see where having what is essentially an ITB-only group is the ultimate in racing experiences. Please explain why you think that adding SS and IT7 is going to cause the tragic demise to good racing.

I see the addition of other classes as BENEFITING the racing since it not only adds another element of racing (traffic management) and it also gives our drivers experience in learning traffic management for when they go to places like VIR and have to deal with dog slow Fieros that rip past them on the start and park their car everywhere else.

If more time is needed to run a 9 group schedule with Saturday PM races we can take 1 or 2 minuets (one lap) from each Saturday morning qualifying session. With uncrowded groups and less fighting for open track we don't need much time to qualify. I don't think I personally ran a qualifying session from flag to flag last year as the fastest laps came early before the car gets hot. One or even more less laps in qualifying is a small price to pay for Saturday racing, if it's good racing. If big groups like SSM complain we could give groups with more then 40 cars the 1 or2 minuets back.

Some of us actually enjoy driving our cars. Personally, I'm indifferent to racing on Saturday. More track time, though, is appealing. Also, one lap is 90 seconds to the stewards.

9 Groups:
13 minute AM + 10 lap races: Finish time after 5PM on Saturday. My understanding is we attempt to avoid that. That means 9 lap races.
12 minute AM + 10 lap races: Finish just before 5PM

8 Groups:
15 minutes AM + 12 lap races and still finish earlier than than we would with 9 groups.

We voted for 8 race groups without a plan that defined how much time we needed.

At the meeting I tossed out the approximate time gained from cutting one and two groups.

If there are enough concerns about the negative impact of our proposed schedule, we should reconsider it. I don't think we did a good job in planning and I was wondering how many others felt the same.

I'm not denying your right to raise this issue. What I'm saying is that you should do something other than complaining about it. You've suggested 9 race groups and seem to indicate that there are many people unhappy about it. Either you or those for whom you speak should put together format and weekend schedule. I'm more than willing to listen to proposals that are equitable.